The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels

Nature Communications

Volumn 8, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Khanna, Madhu ^a   Wang, Weiwei ^a   Hudiburg, Tara W ^b   Delucia, Evan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOFUEL; CARBON DIOXIDE; FOSSIL FUEL; GASOLINE;

ABATEMENT COST; BIOFUEL; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; LAND USE CHANGE; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ALCOHOL PRODUCTION; ARTICLE; BIOFUEL PRODUCTION; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; COST; CROP PRODUCTION; ENERGY CROP; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FORESTRY; GREENHOUSE GAS; INDIRECT LAND USE CHANGE; LAND USE; LIFE CYCLE; NITROGEN CYCLING; PANICUM VIRGATUM; PLANT RESIDUE; SOCIAL WELFARE; TAX; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT; UNITED STATES;

UNITED STATES;

HUMAN ECHOVIRUS 1;

EID: 85021404073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15513     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Roberts, M. J. & Schlenker, W. Identifying supply and demand elasticities of agricultural commodities: implications for the US ethanol mandate. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2265-2295 (2013).
2. Zilberman, D., Hochman, G., Rajagopal, D., Sexton, S. & Timilsina, G. The impact of biofuels on commodity food prices: assessment of findings. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95, 275-281 (2013).
3. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Climate-regulation Services of Natural and Agricultural Ecoregions of the Americas. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 177-181 (2012).
4. Chakravorty, U., Hubert, M.-H., Moreaux, M. & Nøstbakken, L. The long run impact of biofuels on food prices. Scand. J. Econ. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12177 (2016).
5. Chen, X. & Khanna, M. Food versus fuel: the effect of biofuel policies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95, 289-295 (2013).
6. Rajagopal, D. Consequential life cycle assessment of policy vulnerability to price effects. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 164-175 (2014).
7. Witcover, J., Yeh, S. & Sperling, D. Policy options to address global land use change from biofuels. Energy Policy 56, 63-74 (2013).
8. Khanna, M. & Crago, C. L. Measuring indirect land use change with biofuels: implications for policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 4, 161-184 (2012).
9. Bevill, K. Carbon Counter: California's Air Resources Board Defends and Reconsiders its Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Ethanol Producer Magazine, http:// www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/7483/carbon-counters (2011).
10. Searchinger, T. et al. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238-1240 (2008).
11. Taheripour, F. & Tyner, W. E. Induced land use emissions due to first and second generation biofuels and uncertainty in land use emission factors. Econ. Res. Int. 2013, 1-12 (2013).
12. Chen, X., Huang, H., Khanna, M. & Önal, H. Alternative transportation fuel standards: welfare effects and climate benefits. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 241-257 (2014).
13. Chen, X., Huang, H. & Khanna, M. Land-use and greenhouse gas implications of biofuels: role of technology and policy. Clim. Change Econ. 03, 1250013 (2012).
14. Hudiburg, T. W. et al. Impacts of a 32-billion-gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US. Nat. Energy 1, 15005 (2016).
15. Bento, A. M., Klotz, R. & Landry, J. R. Are there carbon savings from US biofuel policies? the critical importance of accounting for leakage in land and fuel markets. Energy J. 36, 75-109 (2015).
16. Beach, R. H. & McCarl, B. A. U.S. Agricultural and Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Security Act: FASOM Results and Model Description (Final Report Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).
17. Huang, H., Khanna, M., Önal, H. & Chen, X. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56, 5-15 (2013).
18. Msangi, S., Batka, M., Yeh, S. & Witcover, J. Analysis of iLUC Impacts Under LCFS Policy: Exploring Impact Pathways and Mitigation Options (National LCFS Project, University of California, 2012).
19. Plevin, R. J., Jones, A. D., Torn, M. S. & Gibbs, H. K. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 8015-8021 (2010).
20. Zilberman, D., Hochman, G. & Rajagopal, D. On the inclusion of indirect land use in biofuel regulations. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2, 413-433 (2011).
21. Zilberman, D. Indirect land use change: much ado about (almost) nothing. GCB Bioenergy 9, 485-488 (2016).
22. Wang, W., Dwivedi, P., Abt, R. & Khanna, M. Carbon savings with transatlantic trade in pellets: accounting for market-driven effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 114019 (2015).
23. Parton, W. J., Hartman, M., Ojima, D. & Schimel, D. DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: description and testing. Glob. Planet. Change 19, 35-48 (1998).
24. Hudiburg, T. W., Davis, S. C., Parton, W. & Delucia, E. H. Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. GCB Bioenergy 7, 366-374 (2015).
25. Campbell, E. E. et al. Assessing the soil carbon, biomass production, and nitrous oxide emission impact of corn stover management for bioenergy feedstock production using DAYCENT. BioEnergy Res. 7, 491-502 (2014).
26. Delgrosso, S., Mosier, A., Parton, W. & Ojima, D. DAYCENT model analysis of past and contemporary soil NO and net greenhouse gas flux for major crops in the USA. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 9-24 (2005).
27. Dwivedi, P. et al. Cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2512-2522 (2015).
28. California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Industrial Strategies Division, California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/ lcfs15isor.pdf (2014).
29. Environmental Protection Agency. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. Washington DC. P. 1107. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/ 420r10006.pdf (2010).
30. Dumortier, J. et al. Sensitivity of carbon emission estimates from indirect land-use change. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33, 428-448 (2011).
31. CARB. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. P. 374 Available at: https:// www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs-isor-vol1.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resouces Board, 2009).
32. Khanna, M., Zilberman, D. & Crago, C. in Oxford Handbook of Land Economics (eds Duke, J.M. & Wu, J.J.) 210-235 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2014).
33. United States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis. Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. P. 35. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2016-12/documents/sc-co2-tsd-august-2016.pdf (2013).
34. Holland, S. P., Hughes, J. E., Knittel, C. R. & Parker, N. C. Unintended consequences of carbon policies: transportation fuels, land-use, emissions, and innovation. Energy J. doi:10.5547/01956574.36.3.2 (2015).
35. EIA. Corn Ethanol Yields Continue to Improve (2015). Available at: http:// www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=21212 (2015).
36. USDA. Crop Production 2015 Summary (2016). Available at: http:// www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cropan16.pdf.
37. Hertel, T. W. et al. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. BioScience 60, 223-231 (2010).
38. Yohe, G. W., Lasco, R. D. & Ahmad, Q. K. in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (eds Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutik, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. & Hanson, C.E.) 811-841 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007).
39. Tol, R. S. J. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33, 2064-2074 (2005).
40. Watkiss, P. & Downing, T. The social cost of carbon: valuation estimates and their use in UK policy. Integr. Assess. 8, 2008 (2008).
41. Havranek, T., Irsova, Z., Janda, K. & Zilberman, D. Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ. 51, 394-406 (2015).
42. EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383. Available at: http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/pe/2010/ 05499.pdf (U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington DC, 2010).
43. Chen, X. & Khanna, M. The market-mediated effects of low carbon fuel policies. AgBioForum 15, 89-105 (2012).
44. Chen, X. & Önal, H. Modeling agricultural supply response using mathematical programming and crop mixes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 674-686 (2012).
45. Del Grosso, S. J. et al. Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases: Coordinated Agricultural Research through Gracenet to Address Our Changing Climate 241-250 (Elsevier, 2012).
46. Del Grosso, S. J. et al. Global scale DAYCENT model analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies for cropped soils. Glob. Planet. Change 67, 44-50 (2009).
47. Del Grosso, S. J., Halvorson, A. D. & Parton, W. J. Testing DAYCENT model simulations of corn yields and nitrous oxide emissions in irrigated tillage systems in Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 37, 1383 (2008).
48. Cheng, K., Ogle, S. M., Parton, W. J. & Pan, G. Simulating greenhouse gas mitigation potentials for Chinese croplands using the DAYCENT ecosystem model. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 948-962 (2014).
49. Cheng, K., Ogle, S. M., Parton, W. J. & Pan, G. Predicting methanogenesis from rice paddies using the DAYCENT ecosystem model. Ecol. Model. 261-262, 19-31 (2013).
50. Chamberlain, J. F., Miller, S. A. & Frederick, J. R. Using DAYCENT to quantify on-farm GHG emissions and N dynamics of land use conversion to N-managed switchgrass in the Southern U.S. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 332-341 (2011).